Such are morals, hygiene, social economy, and (in countries where men belong to themselves) political economy.

Of these sciences Bentham might above all have said: "It is better to circulate, than to advance them." What does it profit us that a great man, even a God, should promulgate moral laws, if the minds of men, steeped in error, will constantly mistake vice for virtue, and virtue for vice?
What does it benefit us that Smith, Say, and, according to Mr.de St.Chamans, political economists of _every school_, should have proclaimed the superiority in all commercial transactions, of _liberty_ above _restraint_, if those who make laws, and for whom laws are made, are convinced of the contrary?
These sciences, which have very properly been named _social_, are again peculiar in this, that they, being of common application, no one will confess himself ignorant of them.

If the object be to determine a question in chemistry or geometry, nobody pretends to have an innate knowledge of the science, or is ashamed to consult Mr.Thenard, or to seek information from the pages of Legendre or Bezout.

But in the social sciences authorities are rarely acknowledged.

As each individual daily acts upon his own notions whether right or wrong, of morals, hygiene, and economy; of politics, whether reasonable or absurd, each one thinks he has a right to prose, comment, decide, and dictate in these matters.
Are you sick?
There is not a good old woman in the country who is not ready to tell you the cause and the remedy of your sufferings.